Loading
Life sciences · Review
International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · November 2, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Review.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Advances in cancer treatment have improved survival rates for many patients with pelvic malignancies, highlighting the importance of long-term reproductive outcomes and overall quality of life. Pelvic radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and multimodal treatment can cause substantial and permanent injury to ovarian reserve, uterine function, or both. Oncofertility can be clinically complex because reproductive risks and available options vary according to patient age, pubertal status, cancer type, treatment urgency, planned radiotherapy field, chemotherapy regimen and dosage, baseline ovarian reserve, desire for future pregnancy, and expertise. The present review summarizes established and emerging fertility preservation options for patients undergoing treatment for pelvic malignancies. Cryopreservation focused options, including embryo, oocyte, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation, can preserve gametes, embryos, or ovarian tissue before gonadotoxic therapy but do not protect the uterus from radiation related injury. Surgical approaches, including ovarian transposition, uterine ventrofixation, and uterine transposition, are aimed at reducing radiation exposure to reproductive organs, although their effectiveness depends on surgical technique, radiation planning, and use of systemic therapy. Uterine transplantation may provide a restorative option for selected patients with irreversible uterine factor infertility but remains highly specialized and resource intensive. Because each option differs in timing, evidence base, risks, costs, resource requirements, and applicability across patient groups, fertility preservation should be discussed early and incorporated into multidisciplinary cancer care. Continued research is needed to better define reproductive outcomes, pregnancy safety, complications, and comparative effectiveness of emerging approaches.